Here in California a similar law passed to make it more difficult to get vital records. They didn't absolutely close the records, they just narrowed the field of players who can get them, but not all that much. What they came up with regarding certified copies is that now you have to have a signed statement notarized by a notary saying what your relationship is to the individual named in the record - the paragraph is now printed on the applications. You have to be the person named, an immediate family member, an attorney or law enforcement. The certified copy can be used for identification purposes - for example, to get a passport or social security card. Anything that requires an authentic copy. If you are none of these individuals, you can only get a non-certified version, one that says "For genealogical purposes only" or some words to that effect which you can get without a notarized statement. It just won't be a certified copy. Not that us researchers really care whether it is notarized or not! Most organizations that want such documents don't particularly care if it is certified (most accept photocopies anyway) or not as they are only interested in the family names to prove lineage - not the cause of death and the other stuff you and I might be interested in for family research in the case of deaths, for births and marriages not much is blanked out anyway. On the death, the words described above usually cut into the cause of death to make it difficult to read and that's about all anyway. I think in some states, like Florida, if it is a non-certified death, the cause of death is redacted on a non-certified copy. So, what you need to do is get a copy of the proposed legislation from your state representative or congress person and READ it to see what exactly it is that is being proposed. Then report back to the various lists where you posted your original message about the proposed changes what the bill actually says and we can then either discuss what the bill has to say, or send you suggestions on what we think the bill should or should not contain and why. Here in California I discovered that legislation has to go through several readings and referrals back to specific committees before it ever gets to the Governor's desk in a final form. Therefore, a letter-writing campaign might be in order once the true contents of the bill as it is being proposed needs to be brought forth. The letters should not be form letters as most congress people, in my opinion, tend to ignore those types of letters, but if personal letters are written that point out specifics about a bill that is bothersome and some valid suggestions on how it should be reworded or suggesting it be killed as proposed, they will more than likely take these types of letters into consideration when making changes or amendments to the proposed bill before it gets into final form and approved by both houses. You need to find out which house initiated the proposed legislation and start your letter-writing campaign with those congress people on that particular side of congress. Once the legislation gets passed in the one house it is sent to the other house and it goes through the same steps all over again. You now have a second opportunity write letters, this time to members of congress of the other house to try and influence their decisions. If that house makes changes, then it is referred back to the original house for approval. If both houses then approve the final version of the legislation it is then voted on and sent to the governor for signature. If you still don't like the legislation as it is proposed you have a very limited time in which to write to the governor to get him to not sign it into law as the governor has a set number of days to sign the bill into law, pocket the bill which might result in it become law without his signature or outright vetoing the proposed legislation. This is of the essence here. In California, there had been some legislation proposed prior to the one that was finally passed. That original legislation proposed a closure of the records for 100 years. There was so much flack from the genealogical community about that proposal that the bill was sent to committee and died. It was the second proposal (described above without the 100 year limitation) that relaxed the rules that had been proposed that didn't quite upset the applecart in the genealogical community. We can live with the rules for getting B-M-D these days, though they can be rather aggravating to say the least, but we aren't shut out from getting the records, it just takes some legwork and sometimes some unnecessary expenses (notary fees) on top of the fees we pay to get the darn certs. Some of the letter writing should also come from the different genealogical societies besides the DAR and GAR - each of the societies in NJ should contact their membership and get them to initiate letters, the professional genealogists who obtain records for clients should initiate letters, you and I as genealogists and family historians should write letters. Whether or not people who reside outside the state of NJ should write and try and influence the legislatures might be in order, but how effective they would be is questionable in my mind as we are not their constituents and they don't have to pay attention to us out-of-staters, but it is always worth a try to get outsiders into the picture. I know a out-of-stater letter writing campaign did play a role, but probably really had no influence on what ultimately happened to the Burton Library in Detroit, Michigan when there was some wheeling and dealing behind the scenes, but changes were made when a fairly prominent individual got wind of problems and basically pulled the plug on the scheme and the scandal resulted in the stepping down of the individual in question and some changes were made. He got on the Roots List and got people actively involved. He took it upon himself to seek information through the Freedom of Information Act and kept us all informed and walked us through the process as it progressed. He got us actively writing letters and also letters to the editor campaign in the local newspaper there in Detroit. If you want people to become actively involved, one person needs to take on the responsibility of following the legislation as it moves through the various processes and report on it. Someone in NJ needs to be at the forefront on this. This first initiation was good, but it needs to be continued. The ball can't be dropped now. Following the legislation as it progresses, and reporting to us needs to be on a continuous basis so that we are kept informed of what our next step in the process is to be. I hope these suggestions will help. I live in California, as you can pretty well surmise, so I am not the one to be involved at the local level. Christie Trapp